BBO Discussion Forums: Another SEoWG case - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Another SEoWG case

#1 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2015-November-13, 05:59

Hi,

Following hand and auction, screens are in use.



4NT is alerted and explained as "unusual NT, both minors, min. 55" to South. No further alerts or questions. South chooses , which results in 6+1. A lead would result in 6-1.

It turns out that 4NT was not "unusual NT" but simple asking for aces. It was explained to North as such but this information does not reach South. TD is called and the following argument is made:

1. 5 was interpreted by South as preference for , obligatory response, i.e. could be with zero values.
2. 6 shows a much better than . At least 65 and solid .
3. East bidding 6 shows a very strong hand and quite likely no as East bid this alone without West showing any value (other than some ).
4. Among the 6 that can be defeated, he envisions a 6520 with Kx in .
5. He is afraid that a lead is ruffed, trumps are drawn and he can not ruff the , i.e. 6=.
6. Thus, he hopes for A by partner and a back for 6-1.
7. Given the correct information (asking for aces) he clearly knows that East has 2+ aces.
8. He does not assume 5 and 6+ but 7+.
9. He would not assume the A by partner as he knows where all 4 aces are (the response to 4NT, asking for aces is also 5, showing 1).
10. Thus, he would lead for 6-1.

Remarks:
1. West did not correct the 6 to 6. He holds J2.QJ95.AQ876.84. I would argue that after 6, he must correct to 6 or realize that the 4NT is not unusual NT showing both minors. In the later case he should have told this to South. He did not.
2. All other tables playing in (four or five) found the lead.
3. No CC available.

What to rule?

1. I would rule MI. The 2007 laws explicitly state that lacking evidence to the contrary, you must favor the NOS. Not correcting tha 6 to 6 makes the case even stronger. West likely knew. Law 21B1(b).
2. The NOS was damaged. Without the infraction (MI), the result is 6-1, which is more favorable to the NOS than the actual table result of 6+1. Thus, damage exists and the TD must redress it. 12B1.

The only remaining issue is 12C1(b), SEoWG:

1. One might argue that the lead is a serious error (I do not think so). This is still not enough as it is not "unrelated to the infraction". Instead, it is a direct consequence.
2. This leaves the wild gambling. Did he deliberately to do something extraordinarily off-beat? I do not think so. One has to choose between and . Both have some merit. One can argue that is the better choice, but does this reach the WG level? Is it really insane?
3. One can not really use the double barrel argument, either. The auction looks perfectly normal to South. East has a significantly better and West has a marginally better . Plausible. Thus, he can not assume that there was an infraction and play the less likely option. In fact, even than and there he clearly claimed 6+, exactly 5, no .

What would you rule? I am strongly in favor of the A lead, which gives 6-1, no matter what, due to the particular split of cards and the lack of decisions to be made.
0

#2 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-November-13, 09:55

"Wild or gambling" means doing something crazy. South had a perfectly good reason for what he did, based on the information given to him.

#3 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2015-November-13, 10:01

Even if a player's reasoning is faulty though, this dos not make an action wild or gambling.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#4 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-November-13, 10:49

There is no SEWoG here.
What happened at other tables is not relevant.
Did the director ask West why he didn't correct to 6? If not, why not? If so, what did West say?
Do regulations require CCs? If so, I would issue a PP. A warning if they haven't been warned before, otherwise a PP in MP or IMPs.

I would rule there was MI (Law 21B1{b}, leading to a score adjustment (Law 21B3, Law 12C1, Law 75). This would, I agree, be to 6-1.

If West says he didn't correct to 6 because he realized East didn't have an unusual NT hand, then I issue him a PP in MP or IMPs for failure to correct the MI as soon as he realized it (Law 20F4, a "must" law). I don't think this should affect the score adjustment, unless West says that it was some reaction of East's that informed him of his error. In that case, I might adjust to 6 down however many it's down, if that's more than one. Have to see the hands, of course.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#5 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2015-November-13, 11:07

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-November-13, 10:49, said:

There is no SEWoG here.
What happened at other tables is not relevant.
Did the director ask West why he didn't correct to 6? If not, why not? If so, what did West say?
Do regulations require CCs? If so, I would issue a PP. A warning if they haven't been warned before, otherwise a PP in MP or IMPs.

I would rule there was MI (Law 21B1{b}, leading to a score adjustment (Law 21B3, Law 12C1, Law 75). This would, I agree, be to 6-1.

If West says he didn't correct to 6 because he realized East didn't have an unusual NT hand, then I issue him a PP in MP or IMPs for failure to correct the MI as soon as he realized it (Law 20F4, a "must" law). I don't think this should affect the score adjustment, unless West says that it was some reaction of East's that informed him of his error. In that case, I might adjust to 6 down however many it's down, if that's more than one. Have to see the hands, of course.

Finally I got the TD opinion. He ruled that the lead was wild or gambling. The reasoning was that he asked 10 players and all of them would have lead . Thus, it was wild or gambling. As the appeal is coming soon: what is wild or gambling? EBU says (White book) that if there is a reasonable chance of success, it is not even serious error. So how would one argue facing this argument from the TD???
0

#6 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,627
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2015-November-13, 12:04

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-13, 11:07, said:

Finally I got the TD opinion. He ruled that the lead was wild or gambling. The reasoning was that he asked 10 players and all of them would have lead . Thus, it was wild or gambling. As the appeal is coming soon: what is wild or gambling? EBU says (White book) that if there is a reasonable chance of success, it is not even serious error. So how would one argue facing this argument from the TD???

In my experience poor TDs are tempted to use the SEWoG route as a means of justifying no adjustment. If they can be made to understand that SEWoG does not actually allow them to avoid adjusting the score (it is only relevant in whether or not you adjust for the NOS - you still need to adjust for the OS, anyway) then they are less likely to be tempted towards judging an action SEWoG inappropriately.
4

#7 User is offline   Pig Trader 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 71
  • Joined: 2009-August-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire, England

Posted 2015-November-13, 16:12

"he asked 10 players and all of them would have lead "

Then the 10 players are all wrong because I would have led a heart! :P

Seriously, I do wonder if the 10 players were given the appropriate scenario, though the poll doesn't define anything anyway. We here are all of the opinion that a heart lead is extremely reasonable.
Barrie Partridge, England
0

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-November-13, 20:30

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-13, 11:07, said:

Finally I got the TD opinion. He ruled that the lead was wild or gambling. The reasoning was that he asked 10 players and all of them would have lead . Thus, it was wild or gambling. As the appeal is coming soon: what is wild or gambling? EBU says (White book) that if there is a reasonable chance of success, it is not even serious error. So how would one argue facing this argument from the TD???

Conclusion does not follow from premise. Argument invalid. Aside from that, I agree with WellSpyder; even if you do not adjust for the NOS, you still have to adjust for the OS. And you have to figure out how much of the damage was due to SEWoG. If it was less than "all of it", then the NOS do get some benefit. So if the TD thinks going with SEWoG makes his job easier, he's mistaken.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#9 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2015-November-14, 11:34

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-November-13, 20:30, said:

Conclusion does not follow from premise. Argument invalid. Aside from that, I agree with WellSpyder; even if you do not adjust for the NOS, you still have to adjust for the OS. And you have to figure out how much of the damage was due to SEWoG. If it was less than "all of it", then the NOS do get some benefit. So if the TD thinks going with SEWoG makes his job easier, he's mistaken.

Appeal is over. Ruling: The lead was a SEWoG and the result is weighted 70%-30% (+1:-1) against the NOS, OS gets down one. Reasoning (sic): 5 simmilar players were asked and all five would have lead . Thus, is a SEWoG (sic). The appeal was judged by players ranked 24, 59 and 104 in the country (lifetime master points).

Since this is an unusual case, this is the actual result calculation if I am right:

OS gets -100 for this board. The other room was 4C+1 for +150, thus, OS gets -100-150=-250, i.e. -6IMP.

NOS gets 70% weighted -1390+150=-1240, i.e. 15IMP. NOS gets 30% weighted +100+150=+250, i.e. +6IMP. After weighting, you have 0.7*(-15)+0.3*6=-10.5+1.8=-8.7. This is rounded towards NOS, i.e. -8IMP.

The difference is -2IMP for the NOS.
0

#10 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-November-14, 14:41

Ridiculous.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
4

#11 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-November-15, 13:48

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-November-14, 14:41, said:

Ridiculous.

Worse than ridiculous. If South is believed to have both minors, very strong with better clubs, then the heart lead looks normal. The TD seems clueless. If it is (presumably simple) Blackwood, and West has one ace, then the ace of spades looks the normal lead.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
1

#12 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2015-November-16, 07:34

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-14, 11:34, said:

Appeal is over. Ruling: The lead was a SEWoG and the result is weighted 70%-30% (+1:-1) against the NOS, OS gets down one.

How did they justify awarding 70% of 6+1 and 30% of 6-1 to the non-offenders? If they think leading a heart was wild or gambling, the non-offenders should forfeit all of the score adjustment they were due, as all of the damage was self-inflicted. Did the committee find another lead (a diamond, perhaps, hoping for a ruff?) that it thought was more reasonable than a spade, that lets the contract make?
0

#13 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2015-November-16, 09:03

View PostVixTD, on 2015-November-16, 07:34, said:

How did they justify awarding 70% of 6+1 and 30% of 6-1 to the non-offenders? If they think leading a heart was wild or gambling, the non-offenders should forfeit all of the score adjustment they were due, as all of the damage was self-inflicted. Did the committee find another lead (a diamond, perhaps, hoping for a ruff?) that it thought was more reasonable than a spade, that lets the contract make?

Yep, this is what we have to look forward to in January when the ACBL adopts weighted rulings. Here, the ruling was just plain wrong, but the TD could make himself feel better by just making it mostly wrong.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#14 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2015-November-16, 10:40

View Postaguahombre, on 2015-November-16, 09:03, said:

Yep, this is what we have to look forward to in January when the ACBL adopts weighted rulings. Here, the ruling was just plain wrong, but the TD could make himself feel better by just making it mostly wrong.

I got a bit further on the issue. The key item is the 5 players that were asked. Unfortunately I do not know the exact method used for all these cases. I asked for details and I was denied this information. One of the five revealed his identity and told me how he was questioned.

The player asked has around 5800 Master Points. He is ranked in top 300 in the country. He is accidentally a very good friend of the TD. The player involved in the appeal has 110 MP and is ranked 1113. Now the procedure:

1. He (the player asked) got the hand and the auction, including the 5-5 meaning of the minors.
2. He was not told what the reasoning of South was, how he interpreted the bids, etc.
3. He was aware that he is asked to help in a TD decision.
4. He was also a TD, one of the dozen in the country.
5. He was asked what his lead would be. He replied .
6. After this, he was asked what other leads he would consider. He strongly suspected he is expected to say . He said that for him was not an option.
7. He was not asked for reasoning but he would have told that he was afraid of loosing a trick, thus, the lead is speculative and risky. I.e. he thinks that the lead was really stupid.
8. He was not told what the reasoning of the real player was and was not asked about his opinion about this reasoning.

He assumes that the other 4 players responded in a similar manner. His conclusion, as a TD is the following:

"If five out of five players lead , not , than the lead is an unjustified risky choice by the player. Thus, it is SEWoG."

I think we are back to the original madness induced by the Kaplan article in the 70s: After an irregularity we no longer play bridge but we play ice skating. The TD(s) score the play of the NOS and if they do not get at least 9 out of 10 for their performance, it is SEWoG.

The 70:30 is not yet known. My guess: They claim SEWoG. They examine how much this contributed to the damage. They claim this was 70%. In reality what probably happened: 3 persons, 2 of them for, 1 against the SEWoG. Thus, 2:1, which is around 70:30.

The OS got 6C-1, i.e. -6IMP, as they should. Probably.

I have not seen the ruling yet.
0

#15 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2015-November-18, 03:03

I have the appeal ruling. It is quite simple: The lead to partner's A and back to ruff assumes that partner has the A. South also knows where the A is. Thus, South assumes that East bid 6 alone constuctively with 2 missing aces. This is an extremely unrealistic assumption, thus, the lead was gambling. Full stop.

Now we are taking it one level up. This time, we have to entertain the notion that even the top level appeal guys will buy this argument and apply SEWoG. Therefore, we want to add a different argument, the application of the SEWoG rule. We want to also entertain the "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" part of the SEWoG rule, 12C1(b):



Lets play the "official line" and play the A, which holds. Now what do you lead? East promised 5. West has 5. South has 3. To me, a lead is obvious as partner is void and must have at least one trump -- West has 2, East can not have more than 8, South has 2. Thus, one is missing. This leads to 6=.

Thus, the difference between "good" play and "gambling play"is 1390 vs. 1370. The other room had 4C+1 for 150. Even if there is self inflicted damage, the damage is zero.

Is this a valid argument?
0

#16 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-November-18, 03:37

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-18, 03:03, said:

I have the appeal ruling. It is quite simple: The lead to partner's A and back to ruff assumes that partner has the A. South also knows where the A is. Thus, South assumes that East bid 6 alone constuctively with 2 missing aces. This is an extremely unrealistic assumption, thus, the lead was gambling. Full stop.

Now we are taking it one level up. This time, we have to entertain the notion that even the top level appeal guys will buy this argument and apply SEWoG. Therefore, we want to add a different argument, the application of the SEWoG rule. We want to also entertain the "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" part of the SEWoG rule, 12C1(b):



Lets play the "official line" and play the A, which holds. Now what do you lead? East promised 5. West has 5. South has 3. To me, a lead is obvious as partner is void and must have at least one trump -- West has 2, East can not have more than 8, South has 2. Thus, one is missing. This leads to 6=.

Thus, the difference between "good" play and "gambling play"is 1390 vs. 1370. The other room had 4C+1 for 150. Even if there is self inflicted damage, the damage is zero.

Is this a valid argument?

I don't know about this as an argument, but the logic seems impeccable.
0

#17 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-November-18, 04:29

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-16, 10:40, said:

[Statement by one of the polled players, who also is a TD:]
"If five out of five players lead , not , than the lead is an unjustified risky choice by the player. Thus, it is SEWoG."

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what a SEWoG is. The above description is a reasonable standard for determining what is an LA (Logical Alternative): If 5 out of 5 players do not choose or consider this alternative, it is not an LA.

But a SEWoG is a completely different beast.

It is either:
  • a serious error, not related to the infraction. Here, we are not dealing with mistakes at the bridge table of which we make two on each hand. You need to think "blunder", a mistake that you normally make less than once a year: ruffing your partner's trick, an other infraction, such as a revoke or a lead out of turn.
  • a wild or gambling action. Think of shooting a slam with the idea: "If it makes, I have a top. If it doesn't make, the TD will give me an AS. Heads: I win: tails: I don't loose." Wrong idea, the TD will rule SEWoG.


In this case, we are dealing with a South player who has thought things through. He has (at the very least) a fair reasoning why he led a heart. Perhaps his reasoning was faulty (I don't really think so), but a simple fault in reasoning does not qualify as a serious error.

I am afraid that these TDs need to be (re)taught about SEWoGs.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
2

#18 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2015-November-18, 06:53

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-18, 03:03, said:

I have the appeal ruling. It is quite simple: The lead to partner's A and back to ruff assumes that partner has the A. South also knows where the A is. Thus, South assumes that East bid 6 alone constuctively with 2 missing aces. This is an extremely unrealistic assumption, thus, the lead was gambling. Full stop.

With the correct explanation South knows East has checked for key cards before bidding the slam, whereas with the incorrect explanation it may have just been a punt, so South knows they are less likely to be missing two aces with the correct explanation. But that notwithstanding, this does not meet the requirement for "wild or gambling".
0

#19 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2015-November-18, 07:39

View PostVixTD, on 2015-November-18, 06:53, said:

With the correct explanation South knows East has checked for key cards before bidding the slam, whereas with the incorrect explanation it may have just been a punt, so South knows they are less likely to be missing two aces with the correct explanation. But that notwithstanding, this does not meet the requirement for "wild or gambling".

With the incorrect explanation, South knows that East is 65 in minors or worse. Thus, East has at most 2 cardsa in majors. He can assume:

1. 2 spades, which would be insane after this auction
2. 1-1, which only goes down if both aces are missing
3. 2 hearts. If Ax, there is not much chance to defeat the contract

In my opinion, is passive and assumes that there will be one looser in the minors. assumes that the 6 must be defeated in majors. Since South knows that all finesses work, minors split nicelz, the finesses are no even a challange, etc., I would seriously consider . Sure, I am not sure. But there is no way knowing.
0

#20 User is offline   mink 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 667
  • Joined: 2003-February-19
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 2015-November-18, 10:50

View Postszgyula, on 2015-November-18, 03:03, said:

I have the appeal ruling. It is quite simple: The lead to partner's A and back to ruff assumes that partner has the A. South also knows where the A is. Thus, South assumes that East bid 6 alone constuctively with 2 missing aces. This is an extremely unrealistic assumption, thus, the lead was gambling. Full stop.

But the assumption was that East bid 6 with 2 minor aces and a void in . This sounds very likely to me. Given the false explanation, if East was not void in he should have all three other aces or 2 minor aces and a void in . Both I regard much more unrealistic than a void in .

Quote

Now we are taking it one level up. This time, we have to entertain the notion that even the top level appeal guys will buy this argument and apply SEWoG.

This would be sad.

Quote

Therefore, we want to add a different argument, the application of the SEWoG rule. We want to also entertain the "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted" part of the SEWoG rule, 12C1(b):
...
Is this a valid argument?

Yes it is, but I would still insist that the lead cannot be gambling in the first place, and use this argument only as a hypothetical one.

Karl
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users